About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 6:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At the end of the article you argue for (inter alia) "non-coercion to the point of infinity". Is this, then, an argument in favor of anarcho-libertarianism?



Post 1

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 1:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well said, Andre. Here in New Zealand, the obsession with economics - a very dull & rather obvious discipline whose most useful function is to keep limited minds amused - has set back the cause of freedom enormously. For a while we were over-run by Hayekians, who had zero interest in, or understanding of, freedom - & a fetish about "efficiency." They gave us higher taxes & more regulation that were then depicted by socialists as "free market reforms." A disaster, whose whirlwind we continue to reap. No, I'm not positing a freedom/efficiency dichotomy; I'm saying, let's get the order right. And let's abandon this terminally tedious fatal conceit of economists - that theirs is the fundamental discipline. It most certainly is not.



Post 2

Friday, November 8, 2002 - 9:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah, here goes Mr Perigo peddling his economist/passion dichotomy again. For several years now I have been attempting to convince Lindsay of the joys of economics, but alas, my total failure is as clearly evident here as ever.

Nevertheless there are at least three valid roles I can identify for otherwise useless economists:

1. To convince the world of the equivalence of freedom and efficiency. (Theoreticians)

2. To work out methods of privatisation and the creation of property rights in a way that causes minimum disruption. (Temporary bureaucrats)

3. As useful :-) participants in the free market. (Practitioners).

Lindsay has three issues with these people: the arrogance of the first type, the errors of both the first and second types, and the dullness of all three types.

He's right on the first two issues, but sadly wrong on the third!



Post 3

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To Michael Marcus I say that MY political paradigm of "no taxation or regulation" is slightly different from -- and seemingly an extension/improvement upon -- Rand's political paradigm of "no force or fraud." But I still generally favor a strong central government -- just one which is entirely reactive and defensive.


Many thanks to Lindsay for his comments. I would add that not only do today's political liberals overfocus on economics -- as a kind of low, primitive, vulgar appeal to greed -- but they also overemphasize ~competition~, when in fact fully half of the freedom equation involves ~cooperation~.


As for Tim Sturm making economics a joyous subject: good luck! This is an important job -- but it seems none too easy to me.

--Andre Z'



Post 4

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 1:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Albert J. Nock -- the last of the political (and cultural) classical liberals -- mocked the absurdity of this Smithian and Marxist societal and cultural overview."

I realize that this is an old article, but I just came upon it, and I cannot rest if I do not correct this absurd error.

Nock was the "last of the classical liberals"? What about Hayek? What about Mises (who long outlived Nock)? What about Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell (who are both still with us)?

JR



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.